User talk:Wsiegmund/Archive 13

Wilderness Diarrhea Getting Killed
Dunno, but it seems remotely possible to judge from some of your Wikipedia work you'd be interested in this. Wilderness Diarrhea is getting merged into Travelers Diarrhea by a couple of zealots who seem to have no concept of outdoor interests.

I get around a lot in the outdoors in PNW, and rarely treat water, but WD article had some good stuff.

After a couple of weeks of calm discussion, I went ballistic and no longer want to participate. Rational voices might help.

These guys have irrationally convinced themselves that WD isn't a legitimate topic for a Wikipedia article.

I've pointed out several bomb-proof arguements to no avail. I'd say the strongest is the vast number of published articles that discuss WD as a separate concern from TD. They are both environmental health topics, and obviously the context of each are far different. Calamitybrook (talk) 05:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Summit elevations
I reopened a discussion regarding summit elevation at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mountains. I found the new reference you added to the Mount Rainer article very helpful. I hope your can participate in the discussion. Thanks. DRoll (talk) 00:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Wad and and TD
Change without discussion is okay. Calamitybrook (talk) 05:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Please use edit summaries per Help:Edit summary. Also, please don't close active discussions. Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no resonable consensus following a considerable period. You are obviously free to comment and contribute --- or not. Calamitybrook (talk) 06:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The most recent opinion was posted on October 12. Closing the discussion on October 15 is too soon afterward. You should wait at least one week. Why are you in a hurry? It seems unlikely to matter. I don't have the expertise to comment on the merits of the proposal without considerable research, but would like to see the discussion closed properly and archived. Otherwise, it may simply be opened once again. Walter Siegmund (talk) 14:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Probably, you have a good point. I'm too hot about the whole thing and certainly have a definite view. You ought to comment on the talk-page. I certainly have -- probably far too much.Calamitybrook (talk) 06:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * A year from now, it is not likely to matter much. It seems to me that the content has improved quite a bit since the merge was suggested. Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Dysgenics
I have removed the citations again because they are simply duplicated new versions of other citations already listed. I removed the older versions, so that the must up-to-date version is still in the article. There is no need to have the same articles cited more than once in the same spot. NJGW (talk) 16:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Gregory Short
Walter thank you so very much for your spot on guidance! I'm really glad you caught that interview on KUOW. I standardized the references by using footnotes.

JimJRCBaker (talk) 23:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You are welcome. I'm pleased to have been of assistance. Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year
Hope 2009 is a great year for you!--MONGO 15:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. May I wish you the same? Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Long-toed salamander
Hi - I noticed that you put a picture in the long-toed salamander article. I was wondering if you would be able to give me some feedback and perhaps some editorial assistance on the page. I've written a fair amount of material in there. It was recently reviewed as a start-class article by a bot. I feel it should be rated higher - perhaps it is due to formatting. Any help, feedback, or comments you could provide would be great. Thanks!! Mark Thompsma (talk) 04:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That is exceptional work on Long-toed Salamander. The bot just adds the template; it doesn't do any evaluation so don't be disappointed. I upgraded the rating. Thank you for the ID confirmation on my larva picture. I'll try to do some editing/review later in the week. It looks very close to a good article to me. Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Tumbleweed
Some people cause drama and make messes. Some people avoid drama and clean up messes even when they didn't make them. Thanks for being one of the latter sort. ++Lar: t/c 01:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * My pleasure. I was going to do some more and saw with pleasure that it was done! Thank you for the barnstar. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 07:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Seattle FAR
Your edit on Seattle reminded me that you probably should have been notified that the article is currently undergoing a Featured Article Review. There have been a couple of recommendation for improvements left that I haven't had the time lately to get around to fixing, so if you want to help, that would be outstanding. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll try to help. Thank you. Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Taylor's Mistake
You asked:
 * "Hi Seglea; I wanted to comment here since it is off-topic at Talk:Douglas_Squirrel. May I know if and when you write the article, please? I can't imagine a stronger candidate for WP:DYK. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)"

I certainly will let you know. It won't be done for a bit, though, because I've got a rush of work on at the moment. I agree it is classic WP:DYK material. seglea (talk) 20:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Greetings
Thank you, still have a lot in the works. Very interesting trying to navigate my way through this process. Best Jsaltz (talk) 04:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Photo of Mount Stuart
Very very nice. You substituted it for my lo-res photo taken near the same spot: I don't mind a bit! hike395 (talk) 04:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Your opinion is very much appreciated. Thanks for taking the time to comment. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Should we nominate it for a FP? I don't have a sense of what it takes to pass, but it certainly is an impressively high-res shot with great detail and nice composition. hike395 (talk) 20:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your encouraging words. To the right of Sherpa Peak is stitching flaw. It is just right of the double gendarme and can be seen on the skyline at full resolution. I mean to fix it, but I fear that it may be a week or two. Perhaps, we could try then. What pleases me most are your and MONGO's comments, since you are both knowledgeable and discerning reviewers. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I fixed the stitching flaw, I think, and have uploaded the new version over the older one. I'm not sure about FP; I wonder if it wouldn't be good to try Commons:Quality_images first? Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Stability
Thanks. Hesperian 05:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * My pleasure. I don't feel strongly about this, but in my experience I've found Naming_conventions to be helpful on occasion and while it isn't the most important criterion (perhaps the least important), I think it is useful to keep in mind. Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to Meetup/Seattle6, a focus group
Hello. I'm part of a research group at the University of Washington (Seattle campus), and my group is reaching out to Wikipedians in the Puget Sound area. We're hosting a focus group designed to gather information on what Wikipedians would like to know about each other when interacting on Wikipedia. Our end goal is to create an embedded application that helps people quickly know more about others' history and activity on Wikipedia, and we feel our design will be much more useful if it's based on insights of users like you.

I'm hoping that the chance to help out local researchers, to engage in lively face-to-face discussion with other Seattle Wikipedians, and to contribute to Wikipedia in a new way will entice you to join us. The session lasts 2 hours and snacks are provided - one is April 8 (Wednesday) starting at 6 pm and the other is April 18 (Saturday) starting at 10 am. (Sessions will be held on UW Seattle campus - directions will be sent after registration.) Your contribution will be greatly appreciated!

Willing and able to help us out? RSVP here. Want to know more? Visit our user talk page. Please help us contact other local Wikipedians, too! Commprac01 (talk) 18:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Template
No problem :) It's an issue I happen to feel strongly about, and obviously I'm not the only one. Gatoclass (talk) 16:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

White River



 * It was my pleasure. Thank you for commenting. Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

IBC
Hi Wsiegmund: I notice that you've been removing links to the Internet Bird Collection from various bird-related articles recently. This is a reputable site, run by the scientific publishing house that is producing the justly-famous (in biology circles, anyway) Handbook of Birds of the World—a mammoth 16-volume tome covering all the avian species on earth. As videos obviously cannot be included in the books, Lynx Edicions created a website to house any and all bird videos anyone wants to post; they hope eventually to have examples of plumages from every subspecies, age group and sex (where dimorphic) as well as examples of behaviours including feeding, mating, territorial interactions, song, etc. Given the dearth of videos we currently have available on Wikipedia, I'd say it's more than appropriate to link to this storehouse of information. Can you please tell us (reply at the talk page of WP:BIRD, if you don't mind) why Wikipedia considers this site to be SPAM? Thanks, MeegsC | Talk 11:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but I overlooked your message until just now. But, separately I received a similar comment and have ceased and desisted. As you know, the volume of link spam is high and it is easy to sweep out some good with the bad. Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Walter. No worries!  I figured it was probably something like that.  Thanks for letting me know... MeegsC | Talk 09:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Canoe
Hello. I came across this article reverting vandalism from the recent changes page. The vandalism inserted was a silly (in my opinion) edit re: the origin of the canoe. Before reverting I checked the article and found information contradicting the editors addition, so I reverted. The information in the article on the oldest canoes was marked with a "citation" tag, so to be safe I googled the info and found a reliable source (again, my opinion) on the very first page of the search. After editing the cite in I noticed that my source was already listed in the external links section of the article. Now curious, I checked into the edit history of the page and found that an anon IP had gone through and marked the article with more than a dozen "citation" tags. This edit summary gives me the impression that the anon editor had some axe to grind with the article. They state "RS should be easy to find!!!!!"...and they were indeed correct. The external links contained them. Most of the other citation tags are attached to very mundane and non-controversial facts in the article. I will be copying most of this post to the article talk page, but I am coming here as you are the editor that add the improve ref tag. Would you object to the removal of the tag? I will be going through the remainder of the citation tags individually, but with the exception of one or two I don't believe they're necessary. I'm not taking issue with your adding the tag at all. I just want your feed back on the issue. Thanks  Tide  rolls  00:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I responded on the article talk page. Deleting the citation tags is fine with me. More use of in-line citations would help the article, I think, but I'm not an active editor of the article so I don't object to the removal of the improve ref tag. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Request to participate in University of Washington survey based on ideas gathered during the Wikipedia focus group you were invited to attend
Hello. Back in March, you expressed interest in attending our Wikipedia focus group sessions but were unable to attend. The goal of those sessions was to gather feedback to help design an embedded application that could quickly communicate useful information about other Wikipedians. We have now created a few images that we feel represent some of what our participants thought was important. We would appreciate it if you took a few minutes of your time to complete an online survey that investigates whether or not these images would be useful to you.

To take the survey, click this link.

Please feel free to share the link with other Wikipedians. The more feedback, the better! The survey is completely anonymous and takes less than 10 minutes to complete. All data is used for university research purposes only.

Thank you for your interest in our research! Commprac01 (talk) 21:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Three Chute Falls
I have nominated your picture of Three Chute Falls to become a Featured picture. Click23 (talk) 20:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the kind words of your nomination. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I know those guys are tough, but with the only opposition that it is not sharp enough is a complement to your work. Click23 (talk) 18:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't participated in enwiki FP for a year or more. It seems much the same. I appreciate your comments and it is always a pleasure to see my images used by other editors. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I see that you have been to Bandelier National Monument, what a interesting place. I stopped by there last year while I was visiting Cimarron, NM.  I would move out there if my wife would let me.  Click23 (talk) 20:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Photo request: Alaska Airlines headquarters
Hi! Do you have time to photograph the Alaska Airlines headquarters by SeaTac airport? WhisperToMe (talk) 19:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I can try to do that in the next few months. It appears to be badly obscured by horticultural plantings so I'm not sure that a decent image from the ground can be obtained. Someone with a wideangle lens may be more successful. Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You could try parking in the lot and seeing if you can get a good shot of the building itself; if the building has Alaska markings on it, then it will be sufficient. If not, the horticulture will be more of a challenge (as you'll have to include the sign in with the building) WhisperToMe (talk) 20:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

RE: American Beaver
Thanks for your comments. I disagree that his comments cannot be interpreted as a personal attack, if not a gross hyperreaction, since H. first removed my refactoring of my support despite edit summary (which I believe is very improper), and his subsequent comments arguably painted me as someone who is falsifying the discussion thread when clearly I did not. This also has the potential effect of discrediting the argument by discrediting the editor. H. then harped about it at the admin notice board, but continued to maintain that I falsified the thread, even when another administrator first suggested H. "let it go". Nonetheless, under insipid/juvenile threat there of being blocked for disruption, which gives me pause about the decision-making abilities of said administrators, I have withdrawn from the discussion, and will hereafter avoid said administrators and unpleasantness. Bosonic dressing (talk) 04:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm relieved that you are both putting the matter behind you. Thank you. Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Brazil nut
I cannot review your source without registering, but it sounds like an editorial. The term is not ludicrous. It may be offensive and politically incorrect but applying the term ludicrous is POV even if its in the Wall Street Journal.--Weetoddid (talk) 21:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I quoted the context in the footnote and on the talk page. I'm sure that the full article is available in many libraries since the Wall Street Journal is a major global newspaper. "The neutral point of view is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject: it neither endorses nor discourages viewpoints. As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy on the grounds that it is 'POV'." (NPOV} Isn't this what you are attempting to do (in violation of a core policy of Wikipedia)? What am I missing? The source does not support "offensive and politically incorrect". If you can find a source supporting your assertion that it is not "ludicrous", please do so. Otherwise, it is WP:OR.  Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The last two comments above were copied to Talk:Brazil nut. Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Alaska HQ
Thank you very much! Next time you see Terry (if you do), give him the URL of the Alaska Airlines page and he'll understand why the picture was so important. Companies need to have their headquarter images on here so people know what they look like. BTW it's a coincidence since I just got permission (relicensing) to upload a photo of the British Airways headquarters from Flickr. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * As a note, on the Seattle WikiProject I marked that the request has been fulfilled. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you; I wouldn't have noticed that. Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I found out that Alaska subsidiary Horizon Air seems to have a separate office facility. I found http://web.archive.org/web/19981201225853/www.alaskaair.com/help/contacts/html/email.stm which discusses a "19521 Pacific Hwy South, Seattle, WA" - Using Google Street View and moving to the south towards the intersection with South 196th Street, I found that the facility has Horizon Air markings on it. From the street view I can tell you can get a clear shot of the building with the Horizon markers on them. Would you mind trying to get a photo of that building at some point? Thank you WhisperToMe (talk) 03:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think I see it (looking southwest). I'll attempt a picture the next time I'm down that way. Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Alrighty! Thanks in advance :) WhisperToMe (talk) 22:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, in addition to the Horizon offices, would you mind getting photos of:
 * SeaTac City Hall (4800 South 188th Street) and SeaTac Police
 * Fire Station 45 (2929 South 200th Street)
 * Fire Station 46 (3521 South 170th Street)
 * Fire Station 47 (3215 South 152nd Street)
 * Sign indicating Angle Lake Park
 * North SeaTac Park (sign) and SeaTac Community Center (13735 - 24th Ave. S.)
 * Riverton Heights Post Office (15250 32ND AVE S)
 * Chinook Middle School (18650 42nd Avenue South)
 * Bow Lake Elementary School (18237 42nd Avenue South)
 * Madrona Elementary School (20301 32nd Avenue South)
 * McMicken Heights Elementary School (3708 South 168th Street) (If the old facility still exists at that point - There is a new facility that will begin construction in fall 2009: http://www.hsd401.org/ourschools/elementaryschools/mcmicken/)
 * Valley View Library (17850 Military Rd. S)
 * If you want, any other signs indicating parks in SeaTac, listed here]
 * Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 05:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Be careful and act lawfully. Several years ago, I saw a TV story about United Airlines. They were afraid terrorists would try to disrupt the airline and did not want to talk about their corporate headquarters building. If the Alaska Airlines parking lot is a private lot, don't tresspass and get arrested trying to get a photo for Wikipedia. If all that one can see is a sign and trees, this is the realistic image to be in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not paparazzi.User F203 (talk) 19:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The Alaska Airlines HQ has already been photographed: See: Commons:Category:Alaska Airlines headquarters WhisperToMe (talk) 00:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Calypso
Many thanks for the Calypso image. It is now - duly credited in the description - part of a video sequence to accompany a Gentle Calypso which I wrote for guitar solo I hope you like the result: A Gentle Calypso Kind regards David Dwsolo (talk) 08:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

NEW CATEGORY PAGE
Hello Washington-user!! What do you think of this category? Either on a scale of 1-10 or with commentary. Let me know through the "Special:EmailUser/" section. #TTiT# 13:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by The-Traveller-in-Tacoma (talk • contribs)  Small Text

Great Blue Heron image
Hello! I just wanted to bring your attention to a discussion/suggestion at Talk:Great Blue Heron, since you're one of the most prolific contributors to the article. The current taxobox image (which I don't believe is the best choice available) has been there for almost a week, and I hope a better image can be chosen before long. Cheers, -- Editor at Large  •  talk  03:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Saxifraga tolmiei 23141.JPG
I have changed the name of the plant to Micranthes tolmiei (Torr. & A.Gray) Brouillet & Gornall, see Wikispecies for reference. I have not changed the file names. Epibase (talk) 06:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Replied on Commons. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Tiffany/Skokomish River picture
Hi, I'm interested in using your Skokomish River aerial shot for my publication. If you could contact me at troyal–@–nwifc.org, that'd be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Tiffany —Preceding unsigned comment added by Everyfrog (talk • contribs) 18:26, 2009 October 2
 * I replied via E-mail. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the link on the Hearing Aids page to Healthy Hearing
Regarding on "What to link" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:EL The site Healthy Hearing has an in depth collection of articles, common questions, and user guides that cover in depth not only aspects of hearing aids, but hearing loss in general. Additionally, a comprehensive funding guide is available free of charge to help persons who have hearing loss and need hearing aids. The site is staffed by audiologists and professional writers who have expertise in teaching and writing about hearing loss and hearing aids http://www.healthyhearing.com/about - The site is also the only official site selected by Google News to cover the topic of hearing loss and hearing aids. Therefore, the ongoing news and articles (example) http://www.healthyhearing.com/articles/42690-care-for-hearing-aids  that are beyond the scope of what a Wikipedia article would typically cover. This is in connection with "Such links could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy."

The site does contain advertising, but this is no different than your local newspaper website. It has independent news and information about a topic, but it has to generate ad revenue. Healthy Hearing is really like the national USA Today for hearing loss and hearing aids. I am assuming that this is why the link is in question - but it would mean that on a Wikipedia article on Newspapers that you could not create wiki pages on those newspapers nor could you link to those newspaper websites as examples.

If you take the time to read through the articles, news releases, the consumer guides and the common questions, you will see what I am talking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.94.216.178 (talk) 15:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Copied comment to Talk:Hearing aid and replied there. Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Removals of British Isles
Hi, I was going to post evidence of sockpuppetry but you've reverted my changes before I had a chance to do so. I've put them back and will do as you sugest. Cheers. MidnightBlue  (Talk)  15:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please log in to make changes of this sort and explicitly acknowledge your edits as 82.3.246.202 (talk &bull; contribs &bull; info &bull; WHOIS) to avoid the appearance of abusive sockpuppetry, yourself. Thank you. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I see that you've done this. I'm sorry I reverted your edits. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. On the subject of the suspected sock, I'm quite certain that Insectgirl is a sock or meat of another editor whos identity I know. However, the editor in question does some good work and although I've had my differences with him in the past I think a sockpuppet investigation might not be appropriate. I would hope he will note what's happened and desist from further socking. What would your advice be in this matter? Thanks. MidnightBlue   (Talk)  16:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you review WP:SOCK carefully. Please note that "alternative accounts have legitimate uses", so be sure that you have evidence of abusive behavior. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've had a look. I think I'll leave it this time. MidnightBlue   (Talk)  22:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

''' Note: The above may be related to British Isles naming dispute which MidnightBlue has edited. Recent edits of consist of removing links to British Isles. Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)'''

MidnightBlue has been blocked for sockpuppetry. Insectgirl no longer edits. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Seattle density
My numbers are pulled straight from dividing population (2000) divided by land area in the info box. At least from some other info boxes I've seen (and what Seattle's info box used to contain), that's how density is derived (see, for example, the Chicago page). (people don't generally live on water, no?) Simulcra (talk) 00:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That is a good method. The other issue is indicating the date for data that are from disparate dates, i.e., 2000 and 2008 for Seattle city population and density respectively. Suggestions? Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

How do I add a new message? all I see is edit of existing messages?
Hi, you wrote to me about adding external links, and since I'm new to all of this, I'm learning about how to do things and the correct way to do them! Such as this message. I don't find a way to simply click on something like "New message", so went into the page edit and added this here. I'd like to discuss the issues with adding external links with you. Also, about adding this question to each and every talk page of each and every species to get someones reply/thoughts on doing so. I have had my website up for almost 13 years now, am not interested in making any profit, nor am I spamming, nor anything I can see that would be contrary to anything but contributing knowledge to the public. I felt that going through the individual species pages of birds and mammals (as well as cetaceans, reptiles, amphibians, etc.) that I have, that I could add an external link that people could go to for more images of a species. Many of the species pages on Wikipedia do not even have an image, especially the rarer species I've photographed, and those pages that do have images, are not always that great, nor all that representable of a picture of that species. I don't think it's a good idea for me, or anyone for that matter, to add tons of pictures for each and every species to the Wikipedia site (i.e. servers), as that just exponentially increases the storage space on the servers (I happen to be a EE like you and an owner of a Computer consulting firm so understand all this behind the scenes that most have no clue about), so I felt that a simple external link, which is a few bytes of data on Wikipedias servers, would be the best and most efficient approach. Then, and only then, a visitor to that species page can go out to another web server to see additional images and info if they so elect. I think I recall after reading all the information from the links on Wikipedia you provided, that Wikipedia is also concerned about sites that will be available and not just temporary links. As I stated, my website has been up for nearly 13 years, and I don't plan on taking it down (in fact am adding species and newer images all the time - almost daily) in the near future. Even if I croak tomorrow(God forbid!) my son has access to it and will keep it up and running indefinitely! As for attempting to get monies, I actually give away far and away more images to educators and grad students and other non-profit organizations such as parks, etc. than I ever sell. And, nearly all the major publishers in the US and some abroad know me and know if they need an image they know to contact me, and all the editors of all the major bird and animal related magazines in the U.S. know me personally as well. Wikipedia is not my idea of marketing whatsoever, and don't wish to either. In fact, I know though that I will get many more emails daily from people who view my images with comments and questions, therefore adding to my daily task list for replies, ughh! I'm simply not interested in the money whatsoever.

I've worked on this personal love for almost 50 years now, attempting to photograph all species of birds and large mammals specifically in North America, and some in Asia, and wish only (maybe it's an old age thing of now it's my time to give back) to share these images to the rest of mankind. Nowhere on my site do I have an order page or try to make a buck, even though it has cost me a great deal of monies over my lifetime to get these images in equipment, film (now digital cards), airfare, rental cars, hotels, gas, etc. all at my expense with no expectations of compenstation.

Therefore, I cannot see any reason why Wikipedia (and the users which are THE important part here) would only benefit from my contributions (in a simple link only).

Please let me know your thoughts, and, HOW do I just add a question to your talk page without going in here like I did to Edit the page, if there is a way?

Thanks, for all your hard work I'm sure to support users on Wikipedia. - tsuru8 (Wikipedia username) - Monte M. Taylor —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsuru8 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Responded at User talk:Tsuru8. Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Question
Hi Walter, I appreciate your concerns about my possible return and I'm curious to hear a bit more about what was wrong with my editing in the past. Most importantly to me, it sounds like you have noticed something problematic about my position on the engineering issues. If I've gotten something wrong, it would be helpful to provide examples, mainly because (as I have pointed out in the past) my edits generally remain in the articles, the controversy not withstanding. If I'm wrong about the engineering, then very little has been done to fix the articles in my absence. Since I was instrumental in getting the article to look the way it does right now, pointing out my mistakes would be a good way to correct errors in the article. At the very least, the basis for your judgment about my editing would be interesting to me in thinking about any future work I might do at Wikipedia. Thanks in advance.--Thomas B (talk) 08:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I concur with the reasoning of Jehochman, that referenced your edit of 2008 April 20. Jehochman was cited by Raul654 in his topic ban. It is a pity that you have little interest in articles other than World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories and their ilk. You are talented and energetic, but your efforts to write about fringe theories "as if they are mainstream views" in those articles are unhelpful. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * But I don't write about fringe views that way. I write about them as if they are fringe views. The controversial part of my edit was whether or not Wikipedia should say that the fringe views are dismissed by the mainstream or, acting as part of the mainstream, participate in that dismissal (and do so in its article on the fringe view itself, mind you). Moreover, as I said in the both the edit summary and on the talk page at the time, though I favour the former approach, I can accept the latter.
 * As to the unfortunate narrowness of my interests: I'm a social epistemologist by training so I'm interested in any point of contact between science and society--my own preference is for cases where the science/pseudoscience distinction is relevant. If editing the WTC articles (which is where happened to start) hadn't been so time-consuming I would no doubt have gotten involved in other things like ID/evolution, parapsychology, SETI, and Apollo, which I also have some knowledge of. But these sorts of articles are understandably demanding because of the strong opinions that most people who are interested in them at all invariably have. It soon became clear to me that I would have learn the ropes in pretty severe detail before trying to make similar sorts of contributions elsewhere. I'm still doing that. If I really wanted to have "influence" or push some "agenda" I'd of course do what people have been suggesting, namely, find some uncontroversial area of Wikipedia and do some housekeeping to get some generalized respect for my actions. But I was always here out of pretty simple curiosity, not to make a name for myself. So it goes.--Thomas B (talk) 19:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yet despite your qualifications, you choose not to participate in improving the encyclopedia articles on poetry, nor on philosophy. Why not? Hipocrite (talk) 20:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Because, like I say, I chose to contribute somewhere else first, and there I immediately ran into such a headwind that it was hard enough to stay on my feet. But it was bracing enough to keep me interested. I'll say that much. One of the things that makes us talk past each other, I think, is that you take the value of Wikipedia to the Internet for granted. Most people who come here try first to find out what it's all about. Because of the treatment I received (have a look at the start I got here, if you're curious) I've never been at all sure about what sort of community this is.--Thomas B (talk) 20:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The record shows that your first contributions were to Social epistemology and that they were well-received. Your first edit on a different topic related to World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories. Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, most people who come here without an axe to grind read articles they know nothing about first. Did you do that part? Hipocrite (talk) 23:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you mean, did I read WP before coming a contributor? Of course. When I said "come here", I meant as an editor. I'm not sure what my work on social epistemology is supposed to prove. If anything, it shows that SE, not CT, is really the POV from which I edit. On the same day, I started contributing to the collapse of the WTC article. I had decided that the way WP's coverage of precisely this kind of controversy would be where it might distinguish itself from other websites. I did not start editing to strengthen the CT POV, I started editing to improve the article's coverage of the controversy and the relevant aspects of the collapses.--Thomas B (talk) 05:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I just now noticed this...hum...anyway, hadn't seen your page show up on my watchlist lately, so now it will! Basboll was apparently denied a return to the articles he was topic banned from by arbcom in emails between them and him...I believe they concurred with me that SPA's editing such topics shouldn't be un-topic banned. Sad, for I also concur with your assessment that basboll coulda/shoulda gotten involved in other areas he could help with.--MONGO 03:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Autoreviewer
Hi, after reading one of your articles at newpage patrol, I was surprised to see that an editor who has contributed as well as you have for such a long time hadn't already been approved as an wp:Autoreviewer. So I've taken the liberty of rectifying that.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  18:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Admin interest?
Hi Walter. I doubt you remember me from various Cascades articles that we've both edited, but I remember seeing you around a lot making solid edits. You seem quiet and reserved, in addition to being an outstanding content contributor. In case you're unaware, there's been a dearth of willing RfA candidates lately and I was wondering if you were interested. If you are, would you mind sending me an email or contacting me at my talk page? I'm not sure you're aware of policy stuff, though I think you would, from a review of your edits, be able to learn on the job if not.

I hope you're interested, you'd make a wonderful addition to the admin team!  ceran  thor 01:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the kind words. I saw the good work that you did on Mount Baker, an article to which I contributed also.  Currently, I'm fully occupied with my duties as an administrator on Commons. Also, my recent activity in project namespace here has been low. But, if circumstances change, I'll keep your words in mind. Thank you. Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, that's a shame. We need more content-oriented admins who have the same outstanding temperament you do. I'm sure that you do excellent work on Commons as well - and please contact me if circumstances do change.  ceran  thor 20:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you should reconsider..I recognize you spend a lot more time at Commons and your work there is invaluable...but having use of tools here would not obligate you to do more than you felt up to...you'll get my support of course.--MONGO 01:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the encouragement and kind words. I'll give it some more thought in January. Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, be sure to ping me if you decide to run. I'm probably not worthy of such an excellent candidate (imho) but I'm sure I could recommend quite a few who are! ;)  ceran  thor 20:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You'll be among the first to know, I promise. Thanks again. Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Appreciate your flagging the fact that when i log in on the secure server ~ produced "71.94.160.115 (talk)" (and twice). Too bad you didn't stand for Admin - I could ask you to get this fixed. Regardless, I guess I'll have to stop using the secure server - and here it seemed such a great idea. Or maybe not, since it seems to work fine on your page - hmmm - now I'm really puzzled. Perhaps it only does that when you secure sign a page you've previously signed while insecure. Regardless - thanks. Skål - Williamborg (Bill) 02:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

And as an after comment - you've done some great stuff here as well as amazing photos on commons. I appreciate your dedication to botany of the Pacific Northwest (and your excellent photographic technique). The Olympic Mountains and the Olympic coast were particularly nice among all the other great photos. Thanks - Williamborg (Bill) 03:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You are welcome. As far as I know, all I could do as an administrator is submit a bug report, same as anyone else. I start Wikipedia using the link to "my watchlist" and that seems quite helpful. It is obvious if I'm not logged in. I haven't been using the secure server. Thank you for your kind words about my contributions. Regarding your contributions, I'm most familiar with Touchet Formation. It was a wonderful guide when I visited Walla Walla last fall. Good work! Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your RfA Support
User: - Thank for your participation and support in my recent successful RfA. Your confidence and trust in me is much appreciated. As a new admin I will try hard to keep from wading in too deep over the tops of my waders, nor shall I let the Buffalo intimidate me.--Mike Cline (talk) 08:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)